Obama Solves His Israel Problem (If Not Palestine’s)

Obama’s speech to a hand-picked Israeli audience in Jerusalem had much good in it, and there are some who devote their professional lives to bringing about a reasonable two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians who consider it the best speech ever made to Israelis by an American President. It was significant that Obama told an Israeli audience in forthright terms that in Abu Mazen and the Palestinian Authority, they absolutely do have a partner for peace. It was significant that he made a connection between his own children and Palestinian girls he had met in Ramallah earlier–a sort of “de-otherizing” of the Palestinians, who have their own powerful and quite contemporary connection to the land of the Palestine Mandate, which Israelis certainly don’t hear from their own leaders.

It was expedient–cowardly is too strong a word–to tell an Israeli audience that Arab countries have regularly refused to recognize and make peace with Israel while failing to mention that there is an offer, from the Arab League, made in 2002 and reaffirmed five years later, to recognize Israel and establish full trade and commercial and every other sort of normal relations in return for a sovereign Palestinian state within the 1967 borders—and offer which Israel has refused thus far failed respond to or even acknowledge. And Obama’s assertion that Jews, who have succeeded and excelled in countless circumstances and environs, can only find “true freedom” within the bounds of the Zionist state could actually even sound anti-Semitic if said with the wrong accent. But overall, Obama did what he reasonably could to make Israelis feel he respects and understands them. Whether or not his innermost sentiments are as saccharine as those he expressed, such expressions are a requirement of American politics, and Obama showed, once again, that he is very good politician.

Were there more subtle messages in the structure of the speech? Obama stressed America’s unconditional, eternal support for the Jewish state, but with a twist: that this would be not enough to save Israel from diplomatic isolation, nor to ensure its security. After touching on the fact of Israel’s military and technological strength, and the extent of American military cooperation, the Iron Dome, and everything else, Obama stated bluntly that Israel will not be secure unless it makes peace. Many in the Arab world despise Israel, and the way to begin to reverse this is straightforward: “Progress with the Palestinians is a powerful way to begin.” In other words, though America “has Israel’s back” as he has said a million times in the campaign, if Israel wants to reverse the undertow of isolation it faces and find a secure place for itself in the region, it will have to make peace. There is no other way. He made the point more gently, couching it in so many “I love everything about Israel” flourishes that it might have been missed, but it was there.

But will the speech–good in many ways–make any difference? I doubt it. There may well be a critical mass, possibly even a majority, of Israeli university students who could find Obama’s argument persuasive. But Israel has just chosen, by relatively democratic means, a government committed to expanding settlements on the West Bank. Some new cabinet ministers are committed to annexing the West Bank, thus formalizing Israel’s status as an apartheid state. Netanyahu himself has voiced his nominal interest in “two states” but virtually no one familiar with his history and beliefs believes him at all interested in proposing anything more than bantustans for the Palestinians. By committing America to love Israel forever and unconditionally Obama may have blunted the barbs hurled his way by the Israel lobby. By making a powerful stategic and moral argument about peace to the Israeli people, he may be able to say to himself that he has done at least something to merit his Nobel Peace Prize.

But asking the Israeli people to push their government to make peace is really little more than a way of making a nice populist sounding noise while doing nothing. Without American diplomatic pressure, without Israel being forced to recognize there will be serious negative consequences for its West Bank seizure—and Obama has more or less promised none would be ever forthcoming, ever—he is asking an Israeli peace camp to do the impossible. Peace is unlikely to come of it. But if things turn out poorly for Israel in the next generation, Obama will be able to say “I told you so.”

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 34 comments

34 Responses to Obama Solves His Israel Problem (If Not Palestine’s)

What a sour analysis. Given the political realities here at home where you have members of the President’s own party ready to excoriate him over insufficient deference to Israel what more do you suggest the President do that will have the backing of congress? He could demand another settlement freeze but it wouldn’t be heeded.

“Okay, go build your settlements like crazy; as you have seen from me since my Cairo speech and during this visit I won’t mention them anymore. So continue to go that route, becoming ever more an apartheid state, and scotch any Two-State solution too. We will still have an “unshakeable” relationship; you have us by the throat politically and I’ll admit it. But it won’t help you with the rest of the world eventually. But go ahead, keep on your present path.”

Sweeping to victory, Obama had the bully pulpit and more against the banksters, backed off at the slightest resistance and has punished none, had the bully pulpit and more against Likudism, backed off at the slightest resistance
and has pressured no Likudist.

He’s done everything to encourage the “excoriators.”

Peace Prize? He should have returned that as soon as he
increased the campaign in Afghan, pressured Maliki under the table to allow US troops to extend their stay with immunity, and intensified the drone campaign.

Obama, “I have your back the next 4 years and go ahead build settlements.” It might not be today, it might not be the next administration but evidently Israel settlements will against our shared values and you will regret it.

President Obama’s speech is welcome and commendable. He is the only U.S. president in many decades who has the courage to offer any constructive criticism of the Israeli state. Unfortunately, the climate in Israel is not receptive any reasonable compromise. The U.S. is primarily to blame for this dismal state of affairs as the powerful lobbies in D.C. treat each new Congress and Administration as errand boys and toadies. Even those who oppose the disastrous foreign policies and unnecessary military adventures, like Sen. Paul are likely to be marginalized if they attempt any serious discussion how American policies are subordinated to the interest of a foreign nation.

Philip Stephens of the Financial Times observes today that Obama has the determination to go to war with Iran, “if necessary”, but not the determination to confront Israel about its illegal settlements etc. Fine words are so much hot air, if Obama is unwilling to follow through.

Let’s face it; this trip is simply for US domestic politics. The Republicans are trying to pick off Jewish support from the Democrats as they have done with Catholics. Obama is doing the international equivalent of taking the campaign to an ethnic restaurant and eating a well-known dish.

There is never going to be any peace process because the Israeli politicians understand that after all the pious blathering their country is really about free land. Forget that and they are literally dead.

I often wonder at the ease with which so many of the John Hagee /CUFI/ “Christian Zionists” and their ilk overlook the promise made to Hagar and Ishmael in the desert, or is it only the promise made to Isaac that matters?

“I will make of him a great nation” — that promise was made to Ishmael AS WELL AS it was to Isaac ….

The problem with the Palestinians is that the moral force of their cause is constantly undermined by the need felt by so many of their young men to make vile, idiotic shows of force.
If they produced fewer would be Arafats and more MLKs they would be well on their way to statehood —- the world would recoil from the brutal treatment that is so quietly imposed upon them.

“Quietly”, because some fool with an AK-47 or strapped on bomb commits some vile act against Israeli civilians — and the world forgets the many provocations and daily soul killing evils that they have to endure.

They are going to have to do something truly courageous — face the Israeli troops and Israeli settlers with no arms other than the force of the rightness of their cause. And they will have their state. Flood YOUTUBE day, after day, after day with proof of brutal Israeli over-kill, until even the biased media in this part of the world can no longer ignore it.
And then they will have their state.

Silence the posturing wannabes who have failed to deliver on their threats to “drive the Israelis to the sea”, and make the very difficult decision to win by nonviolent means. The moral high ground matters when you are in such a struggle, and the Palestinians have so foolishly forsaken the moral high ground for posturing and bluster. Have the courage to recognize THAT has gotten them nowhere.

I found it quite amusing that President Obama wanted the Israelis to take risks for peace while he was unwilling even to risk denouncing their settlement activities as being wholly illegal under international law. And he characterized the ongoing occupation of the West Bank and east Jerusalem and the blockade of Gaza as a matter for the Israelis, with the unqualified support of the US, to decide about, as if the outrage felt by much of the international community counted for nothing. Brand Israel doesn’t sell very well any more and it will take more than a visit from Mr. Obama to get it on track.

To T. Sledge
You are wrong. For the past year not a single israeli has been killed by “terrorists” from the West Bank. During that time Palestinian demonstrators have been routinely confronted with lethal force by the IDF and settlers. And, of course, settlements have grown and more and more of the West Bank has passed into israeli control. Abbas and the Palestinian Authority are the worst sort of collaborators and ought to be thought of as part of the occupation force. Only Hamas have Hizbollah they have shown a willingness to confront israel, a country which responds only to force. In the end, the world will praise the leaders of the resistance, long after Abbas and the PA are consigned to the dust bin of history. If you were looking back at WWII and seeking a French hero, you would not choose Marshall Petain!

Thank you for the reminder that God made promises to Ishmael as well as Isaac. The Bible leads us to believe that the two half brothers eventually reconciled–when they buried Abraham together. We should pray their descendants can do likewise.

I am hopeing that the President’s failure to condemn the settlements was part of a “softer” approach to the Israeli’s with the idea that absent threatening statements they might hear the message. I too tho9ught it was a fine speech. I am encouraged by Kerry remaining in the area to continue talks.

The speech’s comments about isolation are very important I think – the Europeans are increasingly sympathizing with the Palestinians not Israel. This is very obvious not just among the political class but among average people in Europe.

Martin Indyk said on Charlie Rose last night that what Obama may have accomplished this week in Israel was to turn his poll numbers around among the Israeli people, the only ones in the world, where his popularity has always been negative. This, the former ambassador said, now gives him leverage over Netanyahu, who previously could tweak Obama’s nose with impunity. We’ll see how this works out.

The link above describes how the Israeli army has dealt with unarmed demonstrators. Snipers. And then more snipers to shoot those who come to care for the wounded. It’s a pretty effective way of ensuring that peaceful demonstrations don’t remain peaceful.

I am a huge fan of Israel. But I certainly do not believe we should back them to every policy choice they make. especially as it pertains to Palestine. In some manner Israel must be held to account. I think the only way of accomplishing that task is allowing her to work with her neighbors.

This administration opposed a Palestinian state as I recall. And a speech at the UN assembly made that clear. I wonder what has changed that they have shifted their position? Obviously a State makes sense. And it makes sense on several levels:

1. clear and concise borders
2. A Palestinian authorit accountable to the international community
3. Forced to create an independent currency for which they are responsible.
4. An operational civic authority responsible for law and law order.

But Israel must change its provocative behavior. She must cease behaving as though she is helpless innocent contrary in every way, as to actual fact.

Certainly this admion should support an independent state. Stability is a step towards actual peace.

He already won his Nobel Peace Prize for exactly accomplishing nothing and he sallies forward accomplishing nothing which was somewhat good enough for the hardy few that pay attention to anything he says anymore. “Worthless” is the best he is which is somewhat better and somewhat not. I am thankful he is not interested in the Balkans or Korea or even Iran but he is an absolute gift to Netanyahu.

One of the major reasons (I believe) that low level ex-prison guards who served the Nazis are sought well into their 90s, deprived of American citizenship, and deported to stand trial for 70 year old crimes, while Ariel Sharon is able to lie in a vegetative state in Israel, is the fact that Palestinians can be so easily identified with terrorism in the minds of most Americans.

Vile, brutal criminal acts committed no doubt out a sense of rage by Palestinians have unfortunately DEFINED THEM in the minds of too many ill-informed people in this country.

A German Officer in charge of a tank unit, who allowed one ethnic group in a territory held by Germans, to enter a defenseless area inhabited by another ethnic group, which the first group hated with a white hot rage, WOULD have been held morally and legally accountable for the inevitable massacre that the first group committed against the second.

Ariel Sharon should have been held morally and legally accountable in an international court of law for Sabra and Shatila, just as the theoretical German officer would have been, for such acts in central Europe during WW II.

The “terrorist” label that has been so easily placed on the Palestinians blinded many people, I am certain, from calling for the brute to be held to the same standard of justice.

The unfortunate truth is that the Palestinians are going to have to pay a heavy price to overcome that label — it is NOT JUST that they should have to do so. Nobody in this part of the world held Israelis in general guilty for Baruch Goldstein — but then, the Israelis have a well situated “amen corner” to clap and sing away such sins.

I agree with Michael N. Moore that the real goals of Obama’s Mideast trip are domestic. Specifically, I’d guess that Obama wants to relieve some of the domestic pressure from AIPAC (with his important concession about settlements), in order to attend to his domestic agenda and his domestic credibility. This is needed, because domestically Obama has taken a hit due to the backlash against gun-control initiatives, and the emerging reality of the consequences of Obamacare. That’s just the sort of political maneuver Obama excels at.

He’s not caving to the Zionist right, of course. He made that clear. He knows that the (unspoken) opposition of Americans to Israeli influence is perhaps his most important political asset. But he also knows that the Zionist right is quite content with anything that leaves them free to make their next maneuvers, and to pursue their long-term gamble on bringing the U.S. into war against the Moslem world. As Obama spoke to them about Palestine, I think Netanyahu and his allies were employing the the time constructively, to think about ways and means of using Iraq to manipulate the U.S.

I do like Obama’s statement that “Israel has no greater friend than the U.S.” It’s nicely put, considering that Israel has no other friends at all. (Unless you count the Chinese because of their desire to purchase restricted U.S. technology from Israel.)

I believe that a Nobel Laureate should stay true to the reasons/sentiments behind the giving of the Nobel prize, otherwise it will loose its sanctity. If he ultimately fails to do so, the Nobel prize should be withdrawn.

It seems to me the significance of Obama’s speech was in its in-group, American political-class express announcement of his solution for U.S. politicians: Just give Israel whatever it wants, support it whatever it becomes, and don’t bitch about whatever it does. And its significance lies in the idea that almost certainly no Republican is going to be harsher on Israel than he is, but even more importantly it solves the Israel problem for future Democratic Presidents too. “Just give up,” he’s saying. Don’t fight it, surrender to AIPAC essentially, and if Israel wants to use our support to drive itself into a train wreck then so be it.”

It’s always about what is going to happen in the future.
Wake up! It’s happened. The US and Israel are the most
despised and hated countries in the world. Take a look at
the polls. Israel and the US occupy other countries, assass-
inate leaders, who disagree with them, kill children who
they deem are terrorists and on and on.
If any of you think the world hasn’t noticed, keep dreaming. Obama only affirmed the belief that US and
Israel are the most immoral, aggressive and greedy
countries on the planet. Isolation has already happened!

I had to laugh out loud when Obama talked about the Palestinians deserving a “home of their own” – of course, Netanyahu thought immediately of “in Jordan” while Lieberman thought “at the bottom of the Dead Sea”. Nothing, nothing, but nothing changed to Israeli thinking – they are heading for a train wreck (and most Americans want to be with those bast–ds when it happens).